Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
from the copying-is-a-part-of-innovation dept
Earlier this year, we had a short discussion, based on a review, over some of the concepts in the recently published book Copycats, by Oded Shenkar. I've finally had a chance to read the book, and wanted to post some quick thoughts on it. The book is definitely worth reading. It's a really quick read actually, so it's not even a huge time commitment. The basics concept of the book is clear: it notes how much economic advantage is gained through companies copying one another, while bemoaning the negative connotations associated with imitating and copying others. But, of course, if you look closely, you see elements of copying from companies all the time. Any time a competitor does something successful, you're likely to see others copy it.Where the book really shines, in my opinion, is in Chapter 4, where it details the massive successes and failures of copycatting in two key industries: airlines and discount retail. In that chapter, Shenkar looks at the success of Southwest Air, which "imitated" the failed People Express, but figured out how to do discount air travel while avoiding a few key elements that resulted in People Express' failure. He then goes through a variety of other airlines and how they tried to mimic Southwest Air, covering many examples of both success and failure, and explaining why some succeeded where others failed. Most notable, perhaps, was the dismal failure of pretty much every single attempt by the big airlines to copy Southwest. They all appeared to copy the superficial aspects of it -- the key things that everyone knew about -- without quite grasping the underlying structural reasons why Southwest succeeded, thereby setting up a business model in conflict with itself. It's yet another fantastic reminder that the idea that big companies can just come in and copy what some innovator does is quite frequently not really true.
The same chapter also looks closely at Wal-Mart, how it, too, copied certain key aspects from others, while also learning from the mistakes some other players made. The chapter notes that Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target were all founded in the same year (1962), but were hardly the first in that space. Instead, all were copying a few other players who were there before -- none of whom survived. It looks at how these three firms have changed over time, including how Wal-Mart copied many ideas from K-Mart, and then improved upon them, and how K-Mart then tried to copy Wal-Mart back, but failed (for the same reason that the big airlines had so much trouble copying Southwest -- they got the superficial stuff, but didn't realize how that clashed with certain infrastructure issues). And then it covers how Target has carved out its own highly successful niche, both by copying Wal-Mart, but also in tweeking the model in different ways as well, such as targeting higher-end shoppers.
Overall, the book is definitely a worthwhile read, though, at times it gets a little too caught up in the idea of "copying" vs. "innovating." As the details of the book make clear, true innovating is really a combination of copying the best ideas of others, adding new things (tweeks) to them, improving on them, learning from the mistakes of others, and continually experimenting. It's all really a part of the same spectrum. The problem is that we have such a negative association with the concept of "copying," even though every company does it, and the end results are often really important and beneficial to society.
My other complaint -- though I totally understand why Shenkar did it -- is that he purposely stays away from the question of intellectual property, noting that his focus was only on copying that does not violate patent laws. I think it could be interesting to look at how patent laws have impacted such copycat activities. Some have argued that patent laws help force "copycats" to do more tweaking to "innovate around" patents. I think it could be a ripe area for research as to whether or not that's actually true. My suspicion (not surprisingly) is that there's little evidence to support such a claim, and that by limiting how companies can copy certain aspects, it's actually limiting their ability to successfully tweak and improve upon important concepts.
Finally, the book does try to break out some "rules" for more successful copying, and that part of the book feels a bit weak. That is, the book is much stronger in the descriptive phase, rather than the prescriptive part, which comes off just vague enough that it's probably great for generating some consulting revenue for Shenkar, but doesn't yield much more in the way of general insights. But, that's really a small issue overall, and that section of the book is still worth reading, if only to get you thinking creatively about some of the ideas in the book.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: imitation, innovation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Successful copycats don't just copy, they improve what they copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In case anyone wonders all those other workers got contracted by another company since they were contracted by a firm hired by NTT, they were transferred and it was a nicer place.
On the other hand I saw a small company get bigger and bigger contracts because of its ability to think outside the box and come up with very interesting solutions to real problems that saved millions in production costs, now how did they do that? I bet is the law(culture) of the land inside the company, the management had this law that if you brought a drink to the workplace you should bring it to everyone that worked with you, the manager made everyone from the office go out in the morning and greet the workers, he even got to wash the car of his employees, in how many places you see that happen?
I worked with a lot of big companies and from my experience the ones that have a culture of caring for others are the ones more successful.
This is true for at least 3 thousand years since Hun Tsu showed the way. There is a chapter on the "The Art of War" where a mother is crying because Hun Tsu has sucked out the poison or bad blood out of her sons wound and she remembers what happened to her other son who died for him because of a similar act.
It also happens in every other human endeavor, I was just looking at some TV series like "black gold", "deadliest catch" and "the colony" and there is a pattern that people don't seem to see, but it is there, the people who wants to control everything are the least productive people and the people who let go of absolute control are the ones that get to the targets first.
The technical part is easy, the human part is hard it needs to comply with the underlying culture and companies forget about that and it cost them dearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "Crystal Power Orb" can be yours too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZpxMyoFpds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess what? The inventors came up with completely new products and the group of innovators innavoted other products. Mike, have you ever considered that you may be an innovator at heart? It is not a knock on you, because you make a faulty assumption that only innovation is valuable.
Just a thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy And Tweak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You made absolutely no sense there, but it sounded solid :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a thought
The quote from the arrogant corporate stooge sounds much like what I heard.
What you seem to miss is that if people use the invention then and only then the inventor deserves to be paid. If they do not want to pay then they should not use the invention.
Inventors face several types of risk.
1) That the invention has no market.
2) That a fraudulent invention promoter will fleece the inventor. See www.InventorEd.org/caution/
3) That one or more asset thieves will con the inventor.
4) That a large company will steal their invention.
5) That they will not be able to find a contingency litigator.
6) That the large company will forge evidence of prior art and not get caught. Examples of companies who have been caught are Microsoft in the Eolas case and RIM in the NTP case.
7) All litigation is a crap shoot and a hostile judge can torpedo and otherwise good case.
8) That a big corporate adversary will successfully lobby the USPTO to do their dirty by holding up a reexamination for many years.
9) And even when an inventor gets justice in the form of a court order the company who put them through living hell will pay people to tarnish the inventor's good name.
The companies which do this stuff need to be held accountable.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a thought
Under American patent law the inventor is entitled to the invention. But they need to be able to prove that they were first and that they exercised diligence in advancing their invention.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a thought
When going into any type of business it is wise to be aware of what the risk factors might be.
For example, invention promotion companies talk a good line while increasing the likelyhood of the inventor failing by ten or more fold.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a thought
Likewise, we document all the reasons why the losers almost got it right, but not quite. Perhaps if they had the same insights as the winner, they would have been winners too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone has to be original.
Others are creative. They invent new things, products, business methods, etc. Then the copy cat hucksters come out in droves.
When they get caught copying they rationalize that they are just as creative as the person who produced the original ideas.
Well, they are not.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone has to be original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
- Duh - that was the point now wasn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone has to be original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
We live in a capitalistic society and inventions cost money to produce and to teach via a patent or patents. Inventors cannot afford to invent for just goodwill.
Those who pirate inventions under the guise of being innovators are simply one more face of asset thieves. There is no shortage of hucksters and shysters in society as demonstrated on TechDIRT. People who are unethical and capable of rationalizing why they should be allowed to steal others property.
We live by rule of law. Our constitution lays out rights for inventors and patent law defines the specific terms. Inventors are promised the right to exclude in in so doing the right to profit from their inventions in exchange for teaching the invention. That is a quid pro quo deal. We have kept up our side of the deal and we dam well expect to have our right honored.
At this point the law only gives us one method of recourse, suing slimy thieves.
At the end of twenty years inventions disclosed become public domain. At that point everyone is entitled to do what they want with them.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Unethical? Pirates? Thieves? Please. Most people here are none of those things, they just disagree with your ideas.
Inventors need to be paid? Great. They should work at a university or at an R&D company and get paid to do their jobs like everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Now this is really outside the box thinking:) If everyone does this then no new companies are likely to be born.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
I do not know who is this "we" you keep mentioning but if you mean patent trolls and companies suing competition for infringements on patents that should have never been granted, then I do not know what "deal" you are talking about.
I find applying the property/theft rhetoric to nonrival goods strange but this is what we should expect after years of mistaking property rights to scarce goods and resources with monopolies granted by law. Nonetheless, I could use the same rhetoric to pillaging the space of ideas by privatizing what should have never been given an owner in the first place. That, my dear Mr. Riley, should definitely be called "stealing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
If an inventor is being paid a salary by a company, then he always has the option to invent or not invent. He knows that if he does invent, the company will own any patent and he will get no direct benefit. He chooses to invent for a variety of motivations:
* He has friends at the company and he wants the company to do well so that he and his friends get to keep their jobs. We humans are social creatures.
* He wants to prove that he is a superior employee, thus giving him a better chance at higher paid jobs. Putting achievements on the resume is a good thing.
* He is grateful to have a job, so he is giving back to the company. We humans love justice.
* He is annoyed at the old inefficient ways of doing things and he wants to make it better. We humans love to improve things.
* He wants to get a reputation as a really smart person, thereby improving his chances with the opposite sex and with other employers. We humans love to climb the social ladder. We love being popular with the opposite sex.
If our inventor is a lone inventor some of those motivations drop out, but not all. He gets a patent monopoly, but only if he goes to the trouble and expense of getting a patent then fighting patent infringement lawsuits. Most real inventors despise the patent system and never get patents. So for most inventors, the patent system is merely a threat, which actually discourages them from inventing.
The source of the threat is the offense of "patent infringement". The perfectly simple fix is to repeal the part of the law which makes patent infringement illegal. Dispose of the concept. The former "patent infringement" becomes "patent use" and is encouraged. Then, at last, the patent system would do what it is supposed to do, "promote the progress".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
It would be accurate to say that most inventions are never patented.
It would also be accurate to say that most inventors are not versed in patents.
It is, based on my experience, not accurate to say that most inventors despise the patent system. I omitted the word "real" because I do not know what you mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
In order for inventors to have the freedom to invent they need income from their inventions. Otherwise they end up wage slaves. The beauty of our patent system is it allows inventors to become independent.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
This is utter bunk. Lots of people want to think that they invent, especially programmers. This ranks right next to men's preoccupation with their anatomy, IQ, etc., but if they do not get a patent then they actually have no evidence that they invented.
While my primary expertise was in hardware design (analog and digital), I was an early adopter of microprocessor technology. At that time there were mostly Cobal and Fortan programmers and both turned their noses up at programming micros. So I had to write my own code. Throughout my career I used scores of languages and hundreds of dialects. As the industry matured programmers started to specialize in embedded system programming.
I hired quite a few engineers and programmers and it was rare to see a software engineer which had the same reasoning capabilities as those who designed hardware. The reality is that most software developers are drones who write endless amounts of code with slight variations. At least half of them are pretty mediocre. They have their uses but they are not the brightest bulbs in the pack.
This is the same group who rationalizes that their contribution to society ranks in the same class as that of their peers who do actually invent new things. I assure you that they do not come close.
As to open source, it is NO different than any other art area. They can use whatever is in public domain but have no right to use that which is covered by in force patents.
I would add that just because they offer free code as a loss leader, to generate profit in other ways does not give them the right to steal others intellectual property.
I do recognize that open source is the kind of thing Mike Masnick likes to rant about, the FREE business model. But a free business model has to be based on giving away your own property and not on the equivalent of of a chop shop operation selling stolen car parts.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
"As to open source, it is NO different than any other art area. They can use whatever is in public domain but have no right to use that which is covered by in force patents."
Yah right, I dare you write the code to do 3D graphics, robotic vision is all hardware right?
Stress measurements is done in hardware right?
All those critical system controls are all hardware?
You got owned dude, now you are trying to run away in the most coward way possible attacking others work, you don't respect people who work, because you are self centered prick that wants to keep exploiting the system and conning people out of their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
The only dishonest people are the likes of you, who don't want to compete and want to get a stipend from the public instead of having to do honest to God work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Nor do they produce things that nearly destroy society like The machine gun, the hydrogen bomb, the neutron bomb, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Most advances have potential for destructive uses. And many are dangerous like the discussion of steam engines and high pressure steam (live steam). Another example would be early autoclaves which had spectacular and deadly failures.
That in no way diminishes their benefits. Weapons saved our collective tails in WW2. The neutron bomb is a considerable improvement over other nuclear weapons in that there is far less damage, especially radioactive contamination. While they may destroy an adversary they protect us.
In any event, my examples were about MRI, the pacemaker and the Laser, all of which have brought great benefits.
Are you willing to give up all the benefits because if you succeed in socializing inventions progress will slow greatly.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
"Those who pirate inventions under the guise of being innovators are simply one more face of asset thieves."
There's a huge issue with this sentence. First off, I'm sure that the car industry's history disagrees. Look at Toyota's history where they tinkered with cars until they found great success in the US to build a great brand. Look also into their hybrid technology where they came up with the formula for their hybrid cars individually and yet, had to pay the "original" inventor who was out of the market for 10 years, producing nothing and "patent sitting"
"We live by rule of law. Our constitution lays out rights for inventors and patent law defines the specific terms. Inventors are promised the right to exclude in in so doing the right to profit from their inventions in exchange for teaching the invention. That is a quid pro quo deal. We have kept up our side of the deal and we dam well expect to have our right honored."
The process for patent approval is far from streamlined. From the looks, it's first come and first served for ridiculous patents. Then the process of validity is so easy that we have court cases such as Bilski that shouldn't even BE copyrighted.
So really, how is it being innovative if the law is supposed to help only the first one in the field and no one can build on that success without extraordinary fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
America has first to invent while most other countries have first to file.
Might I suggest that you at least take the time to read and learn about at least the basics of our patent system before commenting?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Your post was not clear. My response was polite, and it is a problem that so many people on TechDIRT simply do not understand even the basics about how the patent system works.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
So you are more than one person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New argument.
Actually, no. You continue to use a derogatory tone and continue to ignore the point I made about Toyota's history. They were forced to pay the "original" maker of hybrid cars, regardless of the fact that Toyota made these cars through their own research, as evidenced here when all signs point to them doing their own thing. That is a tax. Alex Severinsky did nothing with his patent for 10 years but as soon as Toyota stepped in with their own work, it was basically shown that somehow, they infringed on his patent.
To add insult to injury, look at what both parties agreed to:
"The parties agree that, although certain Toyota vehicles have been found to be equivalent to a Paice patent, Toyota invented, designed and developed the Prius and Toyota’s hybrid technology independent of any inventions of Dr. Severinsky and Paice as part of Toyota’s long history of innovation."
So in the end, patents are becoming more about taxing innovation than anything else.
So in all, what have we learned from this tax on innovation? That if you're successful, lawyer up rather than invest in new technology. Also, you continue to espouse that this patent was needed. As demonstrated, Toyota did all this by themselves and it is the patent system that is holding back their innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
So where is this steam engine patent? Can someone find the exact patent and what it said as written to and approved by the USPTO? If the govt hasn't even been keeping a historical record of these things in a way that makes them easy to find then how can anyone learn from them? and how are future generations supposed to remember our inventions from them if the govt hasn't been keeping a readily accessible version of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone has to be original.
Everyone does it every day. It is called "culture". Nobody works in vacuum.
@ Others are creative. They invent new things, products, business methods, etc
False distinction. New products and business methods are always based on knowledge accumulated earlier, not only about what works but about what doesn't work.
Try harder next time, Mr. Riley, it takes more than feeling right to actually be right. You can start by coming up with a real argument instead of discussing straw men you yourself have set up. Add to the discussion, show that you really know what adding value is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone has to be original.
How about you explain again how children learn, is there child inventors? What happens when you leave a child alone without the opportunity to copy anything from anywhere?
It is hardwired in the human brain the copy/associative process how do you go against that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
I do not believe that artists as not as creative as inventors. What I do think is that they do not produce things which bring tangible value to large numbers of people. I cannot imagine any piece of art which would extend life as MRI (Dr Damadian), pacemaker (Wilson Greatbatch), children leukemia treatment (Gertrude Elion), etc.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Laser, MRI, pacemaker, (I don't know what "children leukemia treatment" you're talking about, so I can't say) - the history of all of these devices shows that they are built on prior research, by multiple people/institutions, and if anything, show just how important sharing and, omg, innovating can be.
BTW, extending life is meaningless if life is not worth living, and art helps make life worth living. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Tell that to someone who is dying. Art is interesting if one is not concerned about their emanate demise but it is most certainly not a substitute for life.
Pacemakers were not practical until Greatbatch produced his batteries. Note that the Inventors Hall of Fame inducted him for this.
All inventions are built to various degrees on those which proceeded them but each was shared under the terms of patents. They were not free.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
Also, art does make life more pleasant, so disregarding art as offering nothing great for society is insulting to many artists. Please stop maligning art as unimportant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
You misunderstood my position. I am not saying art has no value, rather that the referenced medical inventions have more value. Art is optional where life and liberty are at risk.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
There are children who actually produce viable inventions. It is rare.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They force inventors to invent multiple solutions to the same problem, IF they exist. If they don't exist, then very few will have the money to license the patent and do research along that avenue.
To those here technically inclined, they force progress into breadth-first mode instead of best-first. That slows things down quite a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leapfroging
Often better solutions come from efforts to invent around another invention. It is this process which rapidly advances technology.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leapfroging
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leapfroging
Right, as an obvious counter-example to your argument let's take the case of a certain Mr James Watt. He made an improvement on the Newcomen steam engine, and then used patents to block everyone else from further improving on his work. No-one else managed to invent around his patent, and his contemporaries who independently made the same improvement were unable to enjoy its benefits. He set progress back for the duration of the patent, and some say he delayed the industrial revolution by decades.
Perhaps you could claim that's an isolated case, but it's quite clear that patents are routinely used with exactly the same results today. That sort of thing happens on a daily basis in the world of programming, where developers are prevented from using well-known mathematical techniques to solve problems where those techniques obviously provide the best solution.
While patents may or may not be enabling a few hundred lone inventors to invent, we have to wonder if they are stifling progress on a larger scale and all across the board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leapfroging
Massive link spamming, rather.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
I agree that the right to anonymous speach is an important tradition but it is a fact that comments have more credibility when the author is willing to be associated with them.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
If the comments here are to be believed, you are a con man posing as an inventor, and you are out to steal the money of the people you claim to represent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
We have a team of volunteers who systematically gather data on companies who charge aspiring inventors large amounts of money (typ. $10 to $50 thousand, often get them patents which are worthless, and then lead them along for years with promises of making a fortune. We have been doing this for over a decade.
There are powers in numbers and by bringing people who have been defrauded together we are able to get law enforcement to go after these companies. When they attack us or any of our members we give the company quality time, much more attention.
This has led to large fines and criminal investigations.
It would be an understatement to say that these promoters are totally devoid of ethics.
This operation is funded with donations and it is all volunteer. No one is paid, including me.
They like to make these types of claims in the hope that they can discredit both our organizations and our key people.
What is funny about this is the more they attack us the more generous donors become because they know from personal experience who the crooks are.
Sometimes the best measure of a person's social worth is who doesn't like them. The fact that these frauds make these kinds of claims is an indication that our efforts have been devastatingly effective.
Readers who are interested in pursuing an invention should stay away from any company advertising on TV and when your patent is published should be leery of the solicitations which will occur.
We have a number of discussion groups available for aspiring inventors. These groups are not public and we do screen people before allowing them to join. Those who are interested can read www.InventorEd.org/novice/ and then request to join the discussion group. We also have groups for professional inventors, they are by invitation only.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Thank you for proving my point so beautifully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
If it's reasoned debate you want, you are at the right place, but you need to be capable of it first.
From what I observe, here you are calling 'stupid' all the people who disagree with you, and ignoring any attempts at communication. Are you really surprised that people think you love trolling the internet as much as you like trolling with patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
I have yet to see any reasoned debate on this forum. I see many people babbling about patents who are at best woefully ignorant about the topic.
Intelligence is a very complex issue, so I cannot tell if the people on TechDIRT are stupid, just ignorant or are hired corporate stooges. What I do know is that many people on TechDIRT push large corporate propaganda as truth when it is not.
Any inventor who has suffered at the hands of those who take our inventions without compensation will take serious exception to the agenda which is promoted on TechDIRT.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
ROFLOL. Seriously, you've got to be kidding me. How many times have big pharma constantly gave the argument that without patents they could never come up with new drugs (ie: big pharma CEO's). Are you kidding me? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe what you're saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Coalition for Patent Piracy & Fairness
The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Deform & HARMonization
The first group is made up of banking, insurance and tech interests who want to eviscerate the patent system by eliminating most damages of patent infringement. This group is brash in their theft of inventors patent property rights. As a result they are being hosed in the courts.
The second group wants to retain their own patent value but to otherwise turn the patent system into a kings sport, freezing out all small entity inventors. This group is more risk adverse in large part because they have been burned big time for patent infringement in the past and management cannot stomach that kind of risk. But they are quite eager to return to their pirating ways if they can remove their risk.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
They showed to you that copying is part of the human nature, they showed to you that copying is part of the process of invention, they showed to you numerous times a lot of evidence and the only thing you have to say is that they are dumb?
What don't you have anything useful to say, cant you counteract their arguments with well articulate responses?
They are not the ones failing, in the great theater that the internet is, they are giving others the raw materials to other to reach a conclusion and you give nothing except that "it is true because I said so" you are a pathetic little man, that according to some information is a scammer ripping other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
So why are you still here spamming it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Pot, kettle. You know the drill.
Besides, it's hardly a "self-fulfilling prophecy" when I posit a massive ego on your part, and then you jump in to confirm it to everyone here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Explain why is that countries seem to fall back to IP only when they loose the race to the top.
Was and LG or Samsung executive that recently predicted that the electronic industry in the U.S. would be gone in the next 20 years, so is IP a desperate way to stay relevant in the market?
Without the right environment all your patents will mean nothing. Discoveries are made by necessity/accident, every day you can see that happening, and without producing anything the invention capacity in the U.S. will be greatly diminished, and of course there is the little problem of brain power, it seems that almost all higher education in the fields needed for high tech are dominated by foreigners students which of course begs the question, what happens when those people start using IP to stop U.S. interests abroad?
You see others beat the U.S. in production, it is not hard to see others using IP laws to hurt U.S. companies, and it will happen because they are working harder and developing faster than the American companies ever could.
Your type of inventor's are parasites of that system, that sterilize the environment negating further advancements needed for survival, you creeps are killing this country(the U.S.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Dirt cheap labor and no R&D costs because they steal ours.
"Your type of inventor's are parasites of that system, that sterilize the environment negating further advancements needed for survival, you creeps are killing this country(the U.S.)."
In other words you want to use our inventions for nothing. The typical royalty for an important invention is 5% or less of factory wholesale. That means that it is 3% or less of retail. High volume products might see a royalty in the 0.1% range. I don't think that it is killing anything and if it is too high a burden all you have to do is not use it.
What is killing the country is transnational companies shipping our collective manufacturing know how out of America. And shipping massive numbers of jobs out of America.
And if that is not bad enough they are killing budding companies by stealing their inventions and shipping them and the new jobs they would have created out of the country.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Really, why not talk about cost of living and manufacturing capabilities, South Korea is stealing something? Japan?
And the best why is China knock off's better than the original article in some cases?
"In other words you want to use our inventions for nothing. The typical royalty for an important invention is 5% or less of factory wholesale. That means that it is 3% or less of retail. High volume products might see a royalty in the 0.1% range. I don't think that it is killing anything and if it is too high a burden all you have to do is not use it."
No you prick I don't need your invention, I can come up with my own solutions on my own, but some prick like you that had a half ass idea at some point that didn't try to produce anything ever and patented a half ass solution so vague that will encompass everything I did is going to want we to pay him, ya sure you are the real parasite, and probably a con man, care to explain how you make your money? It is not from your patents is it now?
"What is killing the country is transnational companies shipping our collective manufacturing know how out of America. And shipping massive numbers of jobs out of America."
Wanna know why that is happening?
Because of IP that let some pricks like yourself sit on vague patents and copyrights that they use to force others to comply so they don't need workers in America they need works don't matter where since they don't have anybody back home that will manufacture anything because they can't they can choose where to manufacture.
The new victim of this trend will be doctors, since monopolies are making medical treatment so costly that is cheaper to pay a 4 star hotel in another country with, air tickets, translators and other things than it is to use the U.S. medical infra-structure, will you blame that on people stilling medical knowledge too?
"And if that is not bad enough they are killing budding companies by stealing their inventions and shipping them and the new jobs they would have created out of the country."
You know what is real bad? is that inventions are not happening in the U.S., useful inventions are happening elsewhere, most of what people want don't even come from the U.S. anymore it come from other places.
Is just unbelievable how not even in areas where there is no patents the U.S. can compete, take zippers if you look at any one of them I bet you will see YKK inscribed.
YKK is a Japanese company so there is no "cheap labor" there and there is no patents also, now explain why those things happen you prick.
Explain why people are moving to Asia countries to find jobs and with the money they get which is a lot less they can live comfortably outside the U.S. but they would never be able to afford that kind of level inside the U.S., that is the legacy of IP law in the U.S., to drive inflation, that drives consumption to create virtual wealth.
I don't think you even understand from where money comes from, because if you did, you would see it is worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Do you have any evidence to support this claim.
They don't steal our R&D, they conduct their own R&D. Conducting their own R&D is not the same as stealing ours. If anything it is us that steal their R&D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
They are just a lot less litigious than the US, which shows they aren't innovating to monopolise, but to compete. Of course, RJR wouldn't understand a system like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leapfrogging
There is a great deal of evidence to support this. The problem seems to be that some people do not want to find it or they are so dull that they cannot find it.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[Citation Needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Then link to it! If there is so much evidence, some of it must have leaked into the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
But he has the time to spend countless hours on techdirt debating the issue. I know, it's amazing.
Don't expect any actual evidence from Riley. IP maximsits aren't into providing evidence, they're mostly into providing campaign contributions and lobbying. It's more effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leapfroging
http://www.amazon.com/Most-Powerful-Idea-World-Invention/dp/1400067057
Now, this site and at least one other have criticized the book for numerous reasons that are economics based. In doing so the critics have in my view overlooked perhaps the most important reason associated with the delay in the progress of developing steam locomotion; namely, that a far greater impediment than any patent was the state of all the technological arts during the relevant timeframe that were necessary to design and manufacture commercially viable products. The metallurgical arts were not sufficiently developed. Manufacturing processes for achieving needed tolerances were not sufficiently developed. The products needed infrastructure that was not in place. Etc.
I long ago criticized the critics for what I viewed as a rather simplistic analysis. The historical discussion contained in Mr. Rosen's book helps to place my criticism in some degree of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Thanks for the book reference but it is probably wasted in TechDIRT.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
The proper manufacturing processes DID exist, however Watt's design was flawed in several ways, most notably the irregular shape and large size of his boiler, the need to cool down the steam by spraying cold water inside the boiler, and the fact that he *refused* to use high-pressure steam in his engines.
His contemporaries, most notably Richard Trevitchick, had solved those problems by taking the piston out of the boiler and making the boiler solid and perfectly cylindrical, and by using high-pressure steam (and therefore atmospheric pressure to release the steam instead of cooling it down by pumping water in). In fact, they had managed to compact Watt's stationary, room-sized engine to the size of a modern car engine.
These people were sued off the face of the earth, as they were forced to use a separate condenser, which was a necessary improvement over the Newcomen engine -- this is what Watt had the patents on. Trevithick, who was a very stubborn chap, was finally able to release his 30-year-old mobile high-pressure steam engine designs *right after* Watt's patents expired, and that's when steam power and locomotives really caught on. IIRC, the first train run four years after Watt's patents expired.
Unfortunately, due to the patent wars with Watt, Trevitchick died a poor man, while Watt was rolling in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
I encourage you to provide your own version and counter cc's claims.
@ Even if this was true the term of patents is short enough that it really does not matter in the big picture.
15-20 years is enough for whole industries to rise or fall so what you say is simply not true. Conversely, if the term of patents do not matter "in the big picture", no harm could be done by slashing them drastically, right? "In the big picture", at least, whatever you mean by just another generalization lacking specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
I recounted the facts the way I'm aware of them, from reading a number of widely accepted history books on the subject. That was in response to the AC, who says he knows something I wasn't aware of.
I do not recall addressing you, or inviting you to snipe your shitty little comments at me.
Now stop acting like a child, and stop acting like a dick and STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
You kind of remind me of an adolescent.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
The two marbles you have are not a good substitute for a well functioning brain:)
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
One could argue that your creating an opportunity for the kind of reply you got was your own stupidity.
Maybe if you stop thinking with your gonads you can avoid similar situations in the future.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Given your interest in history, you might want to read a paper published last year that relates to the development of steam engines during the late 1700s and early 1800s. It can be read at:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zcWIDZ2wrWkJ:www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/dougla s/seminar/strongsteam13.pdf+trevithick+watt+patent&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShx q6GhALrrQj2GZMMzqK5L0fBKEj2x7eBwgnEW8By0JrPHXdDXolvO-xTTBlcAmMiPH_iR6PF62-l578ulNQkij9flA3U3bUpUBknt WcQaVPpyT5LwR_GNtLo7USmHl2LlVQGM&sig=AHIEtbT_HQIT86SnMQtI0PZe8zV6DBvEDA
Importantly, I do not vouch for the authors having accurately portrayed the historical record. The most I can say is that their characterization of the impact of Watt's patent on the development of high pressure steam engines generally tracks what I have read from many other sources, i.e., the impact was nil.
As you read it you may want to consider a couple (among many) of issues that are continually repeated here. First, might patents serve a beneficial purpose by encouraging "design arounds" that may lead to new products? Second, might other technological issues weigh more heavily in hindering the development of new products than the presence of a patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
One useful example of Watt's disinclination to use high-pressure steam was when one of his own employees, William Murdoch, independently built a high-pressure steam engine. Watt did everything within his power to prohibit him from further improving on his designs. Some historians actually argue that Watt might have patented some of Murdoch's inventions in order to make it impossible for him to continue his research. Of course, that paper conveniently forgets this.
While high-pressure steam was more dangerous, it was also a lot more powerful and allowed engines to be made much smaller. Trevithick, Watt's main rival, was not primarily interested in competing with Watt's massive engines, which could only be used as pumps in mines and factories. He was interested in building steam-powered vehicles, and that is why he experimented with high-pressure steam. While he did not need Watt's condenser (and never did use it, even after Watt's patent expired), Trevithick was afraid of releasing his plans for a locomotive because of Watt's patent on "expansive steam", and released them right after that expired. Some say that patent may have been unenforceable, but we can only say that in hind-sight -- the threat to Trevithick was very real.
I personally don't buy the "Watt was an honourable businessman" portrayal in the paper. Watt was quite ferocious, and he asserted his patents on multiple occasions, while he sought ridiculous monopoly rents for licenses. In fact, he used his patents to block any semblance of competition (he destroyed the Hornblower family), and provably delayed uptake of his invention, as did Newcomen with his own patents almost 60 years before him: the installations of new steam engines as much as tripled the year their patents expired. Watt made most of his money from licensing and not from selling steam engines, but that changed when the patents expired -- his sons, who were handed his business then, went on to trade successfully without the need for patents.
To put things into perspective, while Watt started out as the lone inventor, he made LOTS of money, so by the late 1700s he was today's equivalent of a corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
It is also important to keep in mind the end application for various devices. Watt and Boulton's engines served the mining and manufacturing markets, and were not intended to serve as sources of power for future locomotion markets. To try and compare the two markets would be a mistake.
If I may, I suggest reading at least one portion of Mr. Rosen's book that touches upon the concerns associated with the introduction of high pressure steam. Rosen presents some historical data suggesting that the concerns appear to have been well founded. It was not until other inventions were created that allowed high pressure steam engines to operate reliably with a much greater degree of safety.
It is important to understand that the article to which I linked, at least one author of which is an economist, did not direct itself to a study of purely economic data. It addresses the historical record and is used primarily to question the assumptions made by many economists who concluded that Watt's patent stifled innovation, when it appears that their understanding of history and the relevant markets at that point in time is seriously flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Do you have evidence that the majority shared this view? Providing evidence that some had this view hardly constitutes evidence that the majority did.
"Boulton's engines served the mining and manufacturing markets, and were not intended to serve as sources of power for future locomotion markets. To try and compare the two markets would be a mistake."
Hardly diminishes the threat of a patent lawsuit. At the time the patent holder doesn't know if an engine for the locomotion market can be adapted to an engine for the mining and manufacturing market.
"Rosen presents some historical data suggesting that the concerns appear to have been well founded. "
Some historical data suggesting that some people may have held the same concerns. Different than saying that they were well founded among a majority. and even if they were, all one needs is a minority to improve upon the engine, a minority that could have otherwise improved if they didn't see the potential threat of a patent lawsuit.
"It was not until other inventions were created"
It was not until the patent expired that these other inventions were created. The point is that the threat of a patent lawsuit was what prevented these other inventions from being created because these other inventions could potentially trigger an infringement suit.
It's not like people couldn't test the safety of various engines in a lab under safe conditions. People ignite explosives under safe conditions (ie: keep a distance), people could have easily came up with various tests and enforced procedures to ensure safety during those tests until they were able to come up with a design that they know is safe. Proof, they eventually did, but they did it only after patents were invented.
The potential for the danger of producing something isn't an issue if you properly control for the possible danger during development. People have safely developed dangerous bombs and the physics and theories that go behind making those bombs. The danger isn't an issue as long as people adopt proper protocols, and I highly doubt the danger of a highly pressurized steam engine even compares with the danger of creating a bomb yet people design bombs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Actually that is not the case. Published patents make it easy to control this risk.
The problem is that many decades of being able to infringe with total impunity led to a very nasty culture in corporate circles. They claim they do not read patents because they have every intention of stealing. It seems that that culture exists in in other industries such as open source.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
To their credit the authors eschew engaging in an economics debate. Instead, they attempt to examine merely the historical record of what was then transpiring in the steam engine industy and its then and future markets. In my view it is critically important to have such an historical predicate for anyone intent on then crafting an economic analysis of the type presented by various groups such as Messrs. Boldrin and Levine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Of course they did.
"but only in a very cursory way took some numerical data devoid of technical context and used it to suport their thesis."
I disagree. The article in question does exactly that by making up an unsupported interpretation of the data that makes no sense. The alleged danger wasn't an issue after the patent expired and it wasn't an issue before the patent expired either.
There was also the danger that the world could end due to an earthquake and meteor shower, and there are some quack person that believed it and that belief may have prevented him/her from innovating in fear because they were hiding but that hardly means anything. To come up with some unintuitive interpretation of the evidence based on the fact that some people may have been afraid of something is hardly substantial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
They don't show designs I want you to go find one recent patent that is clear and show how things are done, there is no such a thing it is the f'cking unicorn it doesn't exist.
There is no designing around, if you patent the basics and that is what most companies are doing right now you can't go around, that may have been true in the 60's but is not anymore, patents got vague and the mess in the cellphone market shows how ridiculous it can get.
Others factors may have an impact but the only true thing that stop others from developing and studying is patents, thank God there are hackers out there studying anyways, with or without the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
No one stops people from studying patents. In fact the purpose of patents is to make the knowledge available for others to study and build on.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
When you find a patent that teaches anything I will believe until then this is like Santa.
Who do you think you are fooling? yourself maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Everything in life which is worthwhile requires work. Learning to understand patents requires your investing some time to understand them. If you chose to not do so then it is your own self inflicted loss.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Problem is that you're not an inventor. You're a wanna be. You compare yourself to Google Engineer as if there is a comparison when what's obvious to them and most techs and most people is non - obvious to you. What you consider non - obvious the rest of the world considers obvious.
No body opens up patent searches to learn anything. People open up books and journals and publications. People don't look through patents for ideas that they're not allowed to implement regardless.
"Learning to understand patents requires your investing some time to understand them."
Disagreeing with you and not understanding something are not the same thing. If you truly understand patents why don't you enlighten us. Give us evidence supporting your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Heck, until much more recently (with Google patent search and the Internet) finding patents to look through was difficult. It's not like your local library carried a book of all the patents. They carried more useful information. Where would you have looked 30 years ago to find details on all the patents that exist so that you can learn about them? You would have to be a patent lawyer to know that and that information was mostly just used by patent lawyers. Before the Internet how many engineers had patent books in their collection of books that they read and studies in order to learn anything (and provide evidence)? Patents weren't put here to teach anyone anything, they're just put here to tell anyone what they can't do. That's not a form of transparency, that's just a form of control. Telling other people what they can't do requires being transparent about what they're not allowed to do but that doesn't do anyone any favors. A dictator is transparent about telling his citizens that they're not allowed to criticize the government but that does no one any favors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Online patent databases existed long before Google.
Not only that, no inventor in their right mind uses Google to research their invention because what they search for would give Google a very good idea of what their invention might be. Google has been picking up where Microsoft left off with a real attitude that all inventions are theirs for the taking.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
You're honestly deluded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
The incentive is to not look at any patents at all, because if you read a patent and are later found to infringe it, you risk treble (triple) damages due to "willful infringement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Lets see if you can figure out how to prove or disprove your hypothesis.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
They are not looking so much for what they cannot do as for what others missed that can be done. Inventions produced in this way are often very valuable.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Every patent teaches something. I feel bad for you that you cannot comprehend this because it means you are missing a great opportunity.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
There is a difference between teaching and telling someone what not to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
willful infringement laws give people disincentive to study patents because if you've seen a patent and then you infringe, even if the patent is so general and doesn't directly contradict what you did or if you forgot about the patent because you can't remember everything you see, the damages for willful infringement are greater than those of accidental infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
This is adolescent reasoning at its best.
This is only a problem if the information is used to infringe a patent. You will note that companies like Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Cisco, HP, Micron, Intel are often assessed double or treble damages for willfulness. That is why they created the story about mythological patent trolls as cover for their disreputable conduct.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Though none of the aforementioned companies are paragons of virtue, you can't forget others that are there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
In order for inventors to have the freedom to invent they need income from their inventions. Otherwise they end up wage slaves. The beauty of our patent system is it allows inventors to become independent.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[citation needed] indeed.
@ In order for inventors to have the freedom to invent they need income from their inventions. Otherwise they end up wage slaves.
Income is income. Not being a "wage slave" is earned by delivering to the market something it values, not by keeping others from doing so by suing them.
@ The beauty of our patent system is it allows inventors to become independent.
By bankrupting them because they happened to be unable to pay fees to license patents necessary for their own inventions or by being sued after they successfully market a product by a corporate patent troll with a patent granted for an obvious "invention", waiting for others to become efficient and then ready to get exploited?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
If "others" build their business on a rotten foundation then they deserve to be run out of business.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
If "others" build their business on a rotten foundation then they deserve to be run out of business.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leapfroging
Does it matter what some say? I don't think so.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Edison was demonized by those who tried to cheat him. Watts was demonized. The same was true of Farnsworth, who was harassed his whole life by RCA. Bob Kearns suffered in the same way at the hands of big auto companies. Jerry Lemelson, who was the second most prolific inventor after Edison was systematically cheated and demonized. I knew both Kearns and Lemelson and they were both honorable people.
So why should I believe the drivel about Watts?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
Yep. There are far more aspiring copycats than inventors and those who want free reign scream bloody murder when their paddies are slapped. This is happening today and it is quite reasonable to think that it also happened in the past.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
Yes, I agree it doesn't matter what you say. Or at least, what you've said thus far, since it seems to be baseless.
There have been several times this weekend when I thought I'd chime in, but I kept waiting for some clarification to come up which might make you seem more reasonable.
As it is, that hasn't happened, so I'm wondering why exactly you hold the viewpoints that you do? What is behind those statements that seem to clash with all evidence and even some evidence you bring up supposedly in support of yourself?
I mean heck, you take classic america vs russian commies viewpoint that if you don't reward someone, they won't invent . . . except that, y'know, even with a lot of academics constantly being executed, and with a lot of academics having fled to america, (from Germany as well), they managed to keep even with america in the technology race all thru the cold war.
And didn't Mike only just bring up the other week, the economic studies which show that the more you reward someone for creative work, or any work that requires more than basic cognitive thinking, the worse they perform and less they produce? (After they don't have to worry about money, that is; up until they have to worry where next months rent is coming from, more money = better).
So, RJR, give me an anchor with which I can try to understand your views. Why do you believe what you do about patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Betamax - Sony is a prime example of a copyright that killed a concept.
But take it further - imagine if magnetic tape had been copy written. Keeping in mind that it was developed primarily out of research in Germany during the 30's and 40's...
What impact would that have had on Broadcast TV, The Movie Industry, Radio, Recording Industry, and then eventually - computers. Honestly; I don't think any of them would be to the level of progression that they are today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Copyright had nothing to do with it.
Betamax was a superior technology to VHS. But because VHS had a head start and there fore lots of money behind it VHS ended up prevailing.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Betamax was a superior technology to VHS. But because VHS had a head start and there fore lots of money behind it VHS ended up prevailing.
Got a citation for that? As in, didn't Betamax come first, and VHS won because it could record a whole movie on a single tape, whereas Betamax tapes were somewhat shorter than a typical movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Sony always tried to corner the market and they failed most of the time and their biggest successes came from when they did open things up, like home recording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Also, early Betas only had a one-hour capacity, while VHS has two-hour capacity. I think this may have led the movie industry to give VHS its support.
Funnily enough, the Sony Betamax story may be repeating itself in the Sony PS3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Also, there is no reason that Beta could not have been scaled for longer recording times as was done with VHS.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
You really need to stay away from mirrors.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Perhaps your comment was a Freudian slip driven by your deepest fears?
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imitation may be sincerest form of flattery but that only works when done well and by extending on what came before, Ronald J. Riley not withstanding.
There are such moments, as the invention of the transistor, that literally change everything. They are, in my mind, rare, though as what happens next is that innovation takes over where innovators see uses for the invention that the inventor never saw.
Inventors themselves can, quite often, be poor innovators. A classic example is that Thomas Edison stuck with tube style recordings long after the platter style had proven more popular because it was cheaper as well as more resilient in terms of storage. Remember that Edison was one hell of a marketer so that's a notable failure.
We all copy from the day we're born till the day we die. Wal-Mart stays successful by copying and tweaking itself though it will start to die the moment it stops doing that.
An invention is not an end in itself. If it's truly a game changer such as the steam engine, the telegraph, telephone, radio and the semi-conductor it gives birth to strange and unexpected children such as the internal combustion engine, television, desktop computers and the Internet.
Invention is copied,combined, morphed and reborn in ways the inventor who was, after all, scratching an itch over a problem or challenge they had. That it's taken by someone else and applied to a situation the inventor had no idea it could be applied to is the genius of our species.
I tend to agree with Mike in that patents tend to slow down or stop such tinkering. Or even things like research into diseases and conditions liked with DNA. Humans eventually find ways to work around these situations but we'd work around them faster if it were not for "inventors" who block access by charging ridiculously high licensing fees or insisting that a company they set up is the only solution as long as they have the patent monopoly to keep others out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
No one makes you or anyone else license. You do not have to use the invention if you don't like the price.
"or insisting that a company they set up is the only solution as long as they have the patent monopoly to keep others out."
If you want the invention to see the light of day you have to compensate the inventor. That is the way the system works.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
It is the other way around. No one makes you or anyone else "invent". If you cannot find profitable market for your product, there are people who will.
@ If you want the invention to see the light of day you have to compensate the inventor.
For profitable delivery, not for inventing per se. Unmarketable invention is quite useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
Most certainly no one give us the ability to invent but government encourages us to teach or inventions with the promise of potential financial gain.
Without that reward we would not publish, in fact we would do our best to keep our inventions secret. This is exactly what guilds did before the advent of patents.
Technological progress would occur at a much slower rate. Is that what you want because if it is you can stop buying any product which have patent protection. In that way you could completely avoid paying for patent and live a short and simple life.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
This is only an assumption.
Mr. Riley, I will not waste my time on answering you anymore since there is nothing to learn from what you write and one risks being offended at the same time. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong but what is obvious is that you are unable to contribute something of value here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
I contributed something of value, namely a great deal of information about the realities of inventing as a business.
The problem is not that I did not contribute value but that you and other TechDIRT users are unable to see or extract value.
In my case I did produce products buy an invention is in its own rights a product and deserves the same respect.
"one risks being offended" I believe that TechDIRT is by its nature offensive and that is the reason why you get responses you do not like.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
That's the problem with IP maximsits. They contribute nothing and then they claim that they have contributed something. See, patents are about as worthless as your contributions to this forum and yet you still insist that you have contributed something. Just like we have learned nothing from patents we learn nothing from you. The idea that we learn something from patents is a false illusion that only you believe, just like the idea that we learned anything from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
We contribute inventions and in the case of my Electrified Monorail control patents they drove $400 million a year in GNP, about 4000 jobs, half of which were in my home state over the life of the patents.
Or how about Dr Damadian who created the MRI industry?
That amounts to hundreds of thousands of jobs.
What about Gorden Gould, inventor of the Laser?
That is what inventors do for society, drive the creation of jobs.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
Of course, as always, you provide no evidence. I'll just have to assume, as usual, that you are knowingly lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
I believe the most probable scenario, if his assertion is true, is that the patent is such a minimal part of the whole (as Mike is fond of saying, execution is the most important part, and there is nothing of the patent on the execution) that whichever influence it had, whether positive or negative, was so minimal a part of the whole as to be lost in the rounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
Why is it that the US lags behind other countries regarding train service or education in those areas? I doubt that people are truly innovating with regard to patents but mainly in sectors where competition occurs (such as software that isn't doing much, if anything, with patents)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
No, you did not. Opinions, assumptions and generalizations are not "information". You had your chance for a quality discussion but you decided to waste it from the very beginning. Good bye, Mr. Riley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
I'm not sure it's sunk in yet but you're a complete moron, know that?
The "invention" that I'm talking about one that deals with a mutation in the human genetic sequence, specifically BRCA1 and BRCA2. When they mutate a certain way they send the chances of breast cancer into orbit.
The patent is held by a company called Myriad. Well, actually, a series of patents over the genes which pretty much gives them control of that sequence.
The fees they charge are such that to get a test for the mutation costs upwards of $4,000 US. At this point we're not even discussing treatment.
Myriad has also blocked research into that problem.
"No one makes you or anyone else license. You do not have to use the invention if you don't like the price."
People who have this mutation don't get that choice, do they? So much for that argument.
Now then, as to patent law, one thing is that natural processes such as mutation aren't supposed to be patentable but still the patents were awarded.
The whole thing is in front of the courts now. With some luck, they'll be overturned.
BTW, do you know that nearly 20% of the human gene sequence as one or another patent claim?
Incidentally, doesn't it come to mind that lowering the price of these tests would mean something simple like selling more of them and actually recouping any costs faster?
Nahh, of course not. One must compensate the "inventor".
Then you fall back on compensation. Well, to some degree true, but in most cases as this thread has repeatedly pointed out to you in most cases an invention is the result of someone scratching an itch to find a better, more effective way of doing something not sitting in their mother's basement, laptop in hand, trying to come up with yet another get-rich-quick scam.
Now, onto a patent fail because the inventor got too greedy.
There's screw head sold in Canada but not the United States known as the Robertson. It's deceptively simple, looks like a square head but it's not quite that simple. The trick isn't in the shape but the slight slight angle towards the bottom of the hole that allows the head to remain on a screwdriver in almost any condition.
Unlike slots, phillips, torx or any number of other screw heads these are almost impossible to strip as the driver and head are designed to let go just as the over torque point is reached.
Might explain why anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge here replaces screws that come in kits with robertsons and pulls out the damnable phillips head and replaces them as quickly as possible on any assembled product.
Mr Robertson, the inventor, licensed it in Canada at a reasonable rate while he wanted a ridiculous amount to do the same in the United States. Guess what? He lost that market and the money that went along with it because he got greedy.
As has been repeated, ad nauseum, to you, isn't only the compensation of a limited monopoly (and I do mean limited) but that it's available for others to study and improve on. Patents aren't trade secrets, you know.
I'm beginning to wonder if you've had an original, to you, thought in decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do You Want Inventions To See The Light Of Day?
The mutation is not what was patented.
"People who have this mutation don't get that choice, do they?"
Before the test was invented they had no choice except to wait and see if it affected them. Today they have a choice to test for the problem.
That test cost a great deal of money to create and it represented huge risks.
If those who invested in the creation of the test are stiffed you and bet that no one is going to invest to invent others.
So, is the public going to agree to raise taxes to fund these inventions, or will congressional gridlock going mean that these inventions completely dry up?
Regarding "Mr Robertson, the inventor, licensed it in Canada at a reasonable rate while he wanted a ridiculous amount to do the same in the United States. Guess what? He lost that market and the money that went along with it"
Which is the way the system is supposed to work. The same applies to genetic testing.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have a strange definition of "works".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The System Works
During the 1920 through the end of the 1960s time frame companies were able to take inventor's property with total impunity.
Since that time inventors have become much better at extracting retribution and large companies do not like that one bit.
While those companies are unable to produce significant inventions they are very creative with their public relations. Since 2005 companies whose business model is based on systematic serial infringement have spent more than $200 million dollars annually painting inventors as "trolls" and otherwise buying influence.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The System Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The System Works
The reason other large business groups are pushing Patent Deform is that the patent system gives an individual who has a significant invention to take them on and win. Most of the time when you see media talking about a patent troll there is an inventors who achieved justice against overwhelming odds.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The System Works
Doesn't negate the fact that big pharma wants patents.
"The reason other large business groups are pushing Patent Deform'
Again, it's mostly big businesses that want patents and contribute lots of money to keep them in place.
"Most of the time when you see media talking about a patent troll there is an inventors who achieved justice against overwhelming odds."
I have hardly ever seen big media criticizing patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The System Works
No one is buying your "pro-IP underdog inventor vs. the big, bad anti-IP corporate bullies" story.
Large companies love patents. Sure, they spend a lot of money on infighting (see: Motorola/Nokia/Google/Apple et. al.) but they get a much bigger benefit in return: Keeping newcomers out of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The System Works
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The System Works
http://ronaldjriley.blogspot.com/
The con artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The System Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The System Works
We have a team of volunteers who systematically gather data on companies who charge aspiring inventors large amounts of money (typ. $10 to $50 thousand, often get them patents which are worthless, and then lead them along for years with promises of making a fortune. We have been doing this for over a decade.
There are powers in numbers and by bringing people who have been defrauded together we are able to get law enforcement to go after these companies. When they attack us or any of our members we give the company quality time, much more attention.
This has led to large fines and criminal investigations.
It would be an understatement to say that these promoters are totally devoid of ethics.
This operation is funded with donations and it is all volunteer. No one is paid, including me.
They like to make these types of claims in the hope that they can discredit both our organizations and our key people.
What is funny about this is the more they attack us the more generous donors become because they know from personal experience who the crooks are.
Sometimes the best measure of a person's social worth is who doesn't like them. The fact that these frauds make these kinds of claims is an indication that our efforts have been devastatingly effective.
Readers who are interested in pursuing an invention should stay away from any company advertising on TV and when your patent is published should be leery of the solicitations which will occur.
We have a number of discussion groups available for aspiring inventors. These groups are not public and we do screen people before allowing them to join. Those who are interested can read www.InventorEd.org/novice/ and then request to join the discussion group. We also have groups for professional inventors, they are by invitation only.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
(reply to this) (link to this) (view in chronology)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The System Works
The guy who takes money from people is trying to convince others he is fighting for them that is just priceless.
Why you are not in jail is the real question, you got to be a real weasel using "donations" and not "payments" make it legal what you do.
You are a snake oil salesman and I feel sorry for the people who believe in your crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying and IP
First, 90 percent agreement; IP as it is presently practiced (and ESPECIALLY some of the "campaign money generating" ideas now before legislators) is very, very BAD. It could derail our economy, and greatly hasten our slide into second, third, or fourth place in the world ecomomy (we are already in last place in health care - well, first in cost of health care!).
So, ANY technology that is fairly obviously "tweakable" is impeded by IP. Any technology that is so new that it is not "on the table" for most industries will be:
1. Expensive to bring into the industry (and time consuming), and
2. Subject to being pirated when the innovator is heavily in debt, but ready to capitalize.
Without IP, that very important segment of the economy will be lost.
Even so, we are likely better off ditching IP as it exists, than letting the life blood be sucked out of our economy. However, that would require campaign finance reform, which isn't even on the table.
Do you suppose there is intelligent life in the universe? There doesn't seem to be much here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copying and IP
I think it is probable there is other intelligence in the universe and that considering the vastness of time and space and as long as we have sub light speed travel that we are not likely to encounter such life.
On the issue of TechDIRT, either the average IQ is far below normal or the forum exists to serve commercial interests. Unfortunately, I cannot tell which is the case.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copying and IP
Unfortunately, thanks to people like you.
"the forum exists to serve commercial interests."
If this were true then why doesn't the MSM, with a monopoly of about 5 media sources (thanks to govt and FCC regulation that blocks out competitors), promote the views that this forum promotes? Why is it that they completely censor anything critical of IP and media monopolies and they only discuss the pro IP position? After all, aren't they gigantic commercial entities? Yet they seem to love IP. The biggest commercial interests, the same commercial interests that benefit from govt regulation in their favor and the same interests that received much of their initial funding through taxpayer dollars, seem to love IP and never seem to be critical of it. Yet I'm supposed to believe that they somehow oppose it? I think not.
There used to be 40 media outlets back when the FCC tried to pretend that their regulatory capture was in the public interest. But then their regulatory capture only ended up serving to substantially reduce media diversity, as it was initially intended to. and then you have the nerve to say that techdirt, which doesn't get any govt favoritism, is here for commercial interests yet the big media outlets are not? Guess what. No one is buying your story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
Media widely promotes the myth of "patent trolls".
Also, big media has promoted Patent Deform legislation, Time Warner is one example.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
Media widely promotes the myth of "patent trolls".
Also, big media has promoted Patent Deform legislation, Time Warner is one example.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying and IP
Now your attempt to paint people under an ugly banner so you can demonize them will fail because you need to convince others and by the looks of it you are not doing a very good job at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"One female began to take them to a pool and wash them. Then her close family began doing it, and now all the monkeys on the island wash their sweet potatoes"
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/weekthree.html
There are many studies with animals copying each other. Copying one another is a perfectly natural right and it happens in nature among animals all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Animals Copying
The thing is that we are humans and we have laws and courts to enforce those laws. Inventors publish because the government promises benefits in exchange for publishing. This is a contract between inventors and society.
The problem is that we have antisocial unethical people who feel perfectly justified in stealing from inventors. And when we follow the social code and seek redress in court the crooks then conduct massive propaganda campaigns demonizing us as "trolls" even as they are losing in court.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Animals Copying
Doesn't mean that the existence of those laws are justified.
"Inventors publish because the government promises benefits in exchange for publishing."
Who are you to say that all inventors invent for this reason? What, you speak for all inventors now? and benefits can exist without the govt.
"This is a contract between inventors and society."
It's not a contract I agreed to.
"The problem is that we have antisocial unethical people who feel perfectly justified in stealing from inventors."
So the breaking of a contract that I didn't even agree to is stealing? Wow.
"And when we follow the social code and seek redress in court the crooks then conduct massive propaganda campaigns demonizing us as "trolls" even as they are losing in court."
So where are these massive propaganda campaigns? I never see them on Fox or CNN or any MSM outlets. Only on blogs that have hardly the same influence and power and money that the pro IP big media outlets have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Animals Copying
Historically and factually this is not even close to the truth.
@ And when we follow the social code and seek redress in court the crooks then conduct massive propaganda campaigns demonizing us as "trolls" even as they are losing in court.
Yeah, poor little inventors like Eolas or Microsoft. Or Oracle, which just happens to be suing based on patents they simply bought as part of their competitor, Sun. It is worth noting that Sun's intention was not to enforce the same patents in this way.
Save your tales for yourself, I do not think anybody is buying the story of lone inventor vs. evil multinationals. Today's US patent law is a tool for blocking competition and for grabbing whole bundles of elementary ideas just in case. It is a dog eat dog system, benefiting only the most aggressive ones, not the ones who actually try to offer better value to their respective markets. A tool for strategic warfare between big players, exchanging hits with legal versions of nuclear weaponry.
BTW, do you have any evidence of this "massive propaganda campaigns"? Could you identify their sources? Not that I have any hope left of reading anything specific from you. Just asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Animals Copying
Read: We have the people with guns on our side, therefore we are right.
antisocial
A difference of opinion does not make one antisocial.
unethical
Government back monopolies (e.g. patents) are unethical.
stealing
Copying is not stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Animals Copying
Tell that to Grigori Perelman.
We have laws in China too, we have laws in Iran and we have laws in Africa does it make every law correct? That is just ridiculous.
Inventors real inventors invent because they are drawn to it, weasel's like yourself are in the area to exploit others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exclude others
Actually, so others can copy is one purpose of the patent system. But, without the right to exclude others from use of a discovery for at least a limited time, no one wants to share for fear they themselves will get no benefit for the effort and risks they invest in creating their invention. That's why Stradivarius took his secrets with him to the grave. There is a reason for property rights. It just makes sense. In fact, it was for that reason in part that the colonies broke from England.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exclude others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exclude others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exclude others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exclude others
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exclude others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exclude others
This is nonsense. Even with patents many companies still keep things secret. Patents have no R&D value since companies get patents before they conduct any R&D. Most patents are obvious and contribute nothing. It's not like someone is special and can come up with an idea that no one else can. Especially someone like you when compared to engineers.
Besides, keeping something a secret, if it would stay a secret, is better than patenting it because keeping it a secret ensures the monopoly rents continue. If no one finds out the secret then the monopolist can still collect monopoly rents without any patents. The only reason someone would patent it is if s/he knows that someone else would otherwise implement the same or a similar idea (hence patents weren't needed for others to implement the idea) and hence they just want to keep other people out of the market. Why patent something if you can simply keep it a secret and still collect monopoly rents from its secrecy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: exclude others
"It's not like someone is special and can come up with an idea that no one else can. Especially someone like you when compared to engineers." Inventors are special, they produce the breakthroughs.
I spent much of my career working as an engineer and what made me good at it was that I have a multidisciplinary background.
"Why patent something if you can simply keep it a secret and still collect monopoly rents from its secrecy?"
The reason to patent is twofold:
1)If someone else is able to reverse engineer and files a patent and I was using trade secret then I would be subject to paying royalties. It is good public policy to give preferential treatment to those who teach their invention. So those who use trade secret may have a long term to use their invention but if someone figures out what the invention is, and once they see it implemented that is a likely outcome, the trade secret holder is in deep crap.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: exclude others
Pharmaceutical corporations ask for patent extensions under the pretext that some of the time that the patent was in existence was spent conducting R&D.
Conducting R&D before getting a patent runs the risk of having someone else patent something before you do and if that happens you wasted your money on R&D since now you have to pay royalties. Companies get patents first and then maybe they conduct R&D after. That's why patents are mostly obvious and have no R&D value whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exclude others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: exclude others
"I spent much of my career working as an engineer and what made me good at it was that I have a multidisciplinary background.
"
Just what university did you get your engineering degree from and in what year? Just want to know.
And check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exclude others
We have a team of volunteers who systematically gather data on companies who charge aspiring inventors large amounts of money (typ. $10 to $50 thousand, often get them patents which are worthless, and then lead them along for years with promises of making a fortune. We have been doing this for over a decade.
There are powers in numbers and by bringing people who have been defrauded together we are able to get law enforcement to go after these companies. When they attack us or any of our members we give the company quality time, much more attention.
This has led to large fines and criminal investigations.
It would be an understatement to say that these promoters are totally devoid of ethics.
This operation is funded with donations and it is all volunteer. No one is paid, including me.
They like to make these types of claims in the hope that they can discredit both our organizations and our key people.
What is funny about this is the more they attack us the more generous donors become because they know from personal experience who the crooks are.
Sometimes the best measure of a person's social worth is who doesn't like them. The fact that these frauds make these kinds of claims is an indication that our efforts have been devastatingly effective.
Readers who are interested in pursuing an invention should stay away from any company advertising on TV and when your patent is published should be leery of the solicitations which will occur.
We have a number of discussion groups available for aspiring inventors. These groups are not public and we do screen people before allowing them to join. Those who are interested can read www.InventorEd.org/novice/ and then request to join the discussion group. We also have groups for professional inventors, they are by invitation only.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
(reply to this) (link to this) (view in chronology)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exclude others
And what type of engineering did you study?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: exclude others
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: exclude others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exclude others
Not much of a historian, are you? I'll add that to the list which includes not must of an anthropologist, archaeologist, and various others who delved into the past with some small expertise.
In Western Europe ancient techniques and invention were lost because the western Roman Empire collapsed and with it that knowledge.
It never disappeared in the eastern Empire (Byzantium) and was gleefully incorporated into the knowledge and lore of the growing Islamic regions where it was developed further and, much to the shock of western Europeans, "rediscovered" when places like the Alhambra library fell to the barbarian "hordes" of the growing Spanish kingdom.
You know, Ronald, things like the concept of the number "zero" as a mathematical tool. Unknown by the Romans and Greeks and those who came before but developed and built on by those the pre-Renaissance Europeans called Arabs. Why our numbering system is still called Arabian, by the way.
You really need to get yourself an open mouth (talk radio) show to display your woeful ignorance on. What the hell, Glen Beck makes millions doing just that or does he have a patent on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: exclude others
I have always had a casual interest in history, enough to read publications like Archeology Today and to read a variety of books.
I was already aware of the fact that some knowledge was preserved but it was certainly not all of what was lost. Not just Roman but countless other advances such as dyes and much other technology was completely lost at many points in history.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: exclude others
"Arabic" actually. There's a good book on the history of zero:
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
WoW, Mike it must be the weekend LOL..
So now your definition of copying is doing something SIMILAR but DIFFERENT, so Southwest "did something similar but different" than People Express. So that is one company "copying" another!!!!..
What because they both offer air travel ?
What's the innovation ?? "Hay if you offer cheap air fares then we'll get more customers". Gee I can see how lots of companies would not be able to work that out. Mike. Once again this is a joke right, you're not serious ?
So if I try to sell a product or service for money, I would clearly be copying off someone else, because after all what else could I be doing ?
According your you selling your soul for profit, you state you if I pay you enough money you will review my business plan, I think you will allocate an entire 4 hours to it !!! WoW.
So I take it then that you have looked at alot of business plans have you Mike ? so you know all about the market analysis aspects, market research, definition of competition both in your market and general competition for consumers money?
So you know all about those things Mike, and you can they come here and put peoples business models and plans into a basic catagory of copying someone else, clearly the company that 'copied' the failed company did not copy it at all, it took some aspecs of its model, and buits its own successful model upon mabey aspects of the failed model and new aspects of their own design.
Clearly they did some things, probably MANY things different that the company that failed, so how can you say what you claim, knowing what a business plan, and model is and how one is developed and written.
Having read so many business plans how many have you seen that state "well do just what that failed company did but different"..
So which is it, you either dont know anything about developing a business plan, or you dont know anything about how business develop their market, their model, and their company.
So which is it, or is it both, you dont have a clue, but expect people to listen to you !!..
I note also you do not give any examples of companies that copy others that from that copying becoming market leaders in that field.
Can you think of any ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
Can you think of any ?"
Microsoft - Apple - HP - Cisco - Micron - IBM - Intel
There is really quite a long list.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
Thomas Edison, James Watt, Henry Ford...
In fact, let's turn this around. Darryl: please name even one company, that did not become a market leader in their field through copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So your a business expert Mike, charging big money to review business plans !!..
If every tech startup took the time to search the USPTO's database of potentially infringed algorithmic patents, then they seek to pay the patent holder before they do anything... Well, that means that only those with lot's of capitol to burn would ever start a business. Truly innovative startups don't really get capitol like that, Because their business is unproven. Given the current burdens imposed upon todays US based entrepreneur, I find it hard to expect any business to go out and hire a patent attorney to search for the hundred or so "inventors" that demand a pound of flesh from every dupe who believes he invented burping.
By the way, how much did the patent licenses cost you for your sites? I see several well known patents that you make use of. Just out of curiosity, are you paying IBM's quarterly or annual rate? You should share your story of happily paying the fees that those mega corps charge, and how it makes you feel like a real American?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets do an experiment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
being creative doesn't mean original either
ya know i wonder if the reson aliens haven't contacted us is copyrights ( besides the wars and violence)
a civilized society that can't get over the gene roddenberry replicator transporter ideal will not get too advanced will it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which Alias Is Mike Using?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which Alias Is Mike Using?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which Alias Is Mike Using?
Oh wait, sorry, that's yours. I was momentarily confused by your lack of pathetic signature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@this patent guy then @151
Then continue to speak....
@151 and i totally agree i've never heard of anyone start out going, oh gee i feel creative or inventive better check the patent database and like make sure i'm not "infringing"
invention comes from a need one sees to change/improve somehting around you and creativity well it just happens.
Both have that thing called an inspiration and there is no set way to say all people inventing get inspiration this way...it just doesn't work that way.
I could look at a cork and get an idea for a game demon image...it just is like that.
I'll Then invent code in same way i either do just get inventive or not.
I will say when it comes to code however if i get a thought that it might cause me legal trouble no matter how cool or how neat the app/game would be i don't bother, and thus society and the world miss out. THIS is the problem why the USA is staking so heavily on IP cause the future is no one does manual labout thanks to japanese robots, service industry all automated etc, all thats left is IP. SO free it like gene roddenberry envisioned or there will be problems later on. THEN you get a who can make things the cheapest and you get a who can do the most for its own sake, and all this money will get spend in and on other industries instead of taxing us all to death with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @this patent guy then @151
Doing a clearence search to ensure that you are not infringing is not what I was talking about in this case.
1) It can be worthwhile to read patents to get inspiration. You look at different approaches to solving a problem and in many cases an inventor will see a better way to solve one or more problems.
2) You simply have a flash of genius and to flesh the idea out you review patents. In the process the inventor gets a pretty good idea of what has already been done and even more important reading about what has been done often allows the inventor to see how their idea can be expanded.
The patent database is a treasure trove of knowledge in its own right. Studying others patents is much better than reading a book written by an academic who usually does not have any real insight. Patents contain the thoughts of the best and brightest in a field and to ignore them is a terrible waste.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @this patent guy then @151
He's absolutely right BTW, there is no way these entitlements can be sustained. More people are starting to realize what a mistake we've made in creating a system where imagination alone is worth ridiculous mountains of cash. The big things that were pushing for in reform now is a safe harbor, much shorter duration, reduced liability and grace in the event that theres no other option but to infringe while the patent is working its way out of the court system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @this patent guy then @151
A patent is not about just an idea. patents must disclose specific solutions to be granted.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @this patent guy then @151
Just like you can't prove you patented anything worth and that you are not a con man preying on other people.
How are the donations scheme of yours going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @this patent guy then @151
Inventors who have lost money to this company should contact the FTC www.FTC.gov. Inventors are entitled to a refund and should not accept anything less then the full amount. See the FTC consent agreement and be sure to sent copies of complaints to Help@InvEd.org
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @this patent guy then @151
Have you got many donations lately?
That is how you make money isn't? Misleading people into a blackhole funding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @this patent guy then @151
Inventors who have lost money to this company should contact the FTC www.FTC.gov. Inventors are entitled to a refund and should not accept anything less then the full amount. See the FTC consent agreement and be sure to sent copies of complaints to Help@InvEd.org
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @this patent guy then @151
http://www.inventored.org/caution/friedman/
Rogue Patent Attorney Sanctioned - Becomes Vacuum Salesman
http://www.inventored.org/caution/kaardal/
Some companies never learn.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's "Tweak"
Anyway - the proper spelling is "tweak." Meaning "to improve in small measures."
"Tweek" is slang, and means "to be high on crystal meth." I'm fairly sure that's not what you meant, though it might be more entertaining if it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
196 comments. Successful troll is successful. Cool story, bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He needs this, or his donations are going nowhere and he stop getting funded by gullible people who fall prey to his moronic rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just Google his name and you will see the wonderful treasure trove of information other people collected on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: InventHelp.com
Inventors who have lost money to this company should contact the FTC www.FTC.gov. Inventors are entitled to a refund and should not accept anything less then the full amount. See the FTC consent agreement and be sure to sent copies of complaints to Help@InvEd.org
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding the Riley IP maximalist
Thing is, patent lawyers are paid by the hour. So obfuscating the entire process of innovation for profit is in his best interest.
Is there anything wrong with copying? There are things we already copy such as language or writing. Should we have it that all people pay $7 directly to learn these skills? More than likely, such a proposal may make the US richer, but it'll impede the progress of learning for all. This is basically the position of Riley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regarding the Riley IP maximalist
I am not a lawyer. I am an entrepreneur-engineer-inventor. I do manufacture my inventions.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regarding the Riley IP maximalist
Where did you earn your degree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam always had something new in his first store every week. He would have a new toy for the kids, a new tool for the men and some new cloth or something nice for the ladies. He was a true entrepreneur. He knew his market and served it. He got people to spend money. Not a lot but enough to make him a rich man. So know your customers.
The main problem with many companies is they forget they are serving the public and when you stop serving the public they go somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In business to business deals good relationships are built on equitable mutual profit.
A huge problem today with large companies is that most fail on one or both counts.
That creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to step in and take business from large entities.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A note about Kmart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No answers Mike, way to connect with fans :)
Riley, way to hyjack a thread !!!, you know it diminishes what you say..
So did we conclude that the budget airline actually 'copied' the other failed airline, or was that just a Mike strawman.
Did they copy the hiring structure, the routes, the timetables, the lease agreements for the aircraft, the terminal facilities ???????
Or did they copy "budget airfairs". So simplistic Mike, but that appears to be you all the way.
You would not even bother to look at the bigger picture..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How To Study Patents
This will teach how to find relevant data.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]